Ir.

Liew Shaw Shong

1

Introduction
Scope
Site Investigation
Information on Hydrology, Meteorology, Environment, Natural Resources, Activities & Topography

Ground Investigation
Information on Ground & Groundwater conditions

Monitoring
Time dependent changes in ground movements, groundwater fluctuation & movements
2

Introduction
Purpose

3

Introduction

4

5

Why doing GI? Why Geotechnical Engineer? What Risk & Consequence Why doing GI?
It is regard as necessary, but not a rewarding expense. (Uncertainty, sufficiently accurate design options for Cost & Benefit study) Why Geotechnical Engineer? Geotechnical engineer as an underwriter for risk assessment. What Risk in Ground & its Consequence ? Ground Variability & Geo-hazards. Financial Viability & Cost Overrun (Construction & Operation).

6

7

Rock Mechanics Geology deformation Soil Mechanics composition failure deformation Hydrology Fracture genesis seepage failure Surface fluid flowprocesses Mechanics seepage blasting hydrology Structural quarry Mechanics Public Policy Fluid Control deformation codes Systems failure standard e.g. dams Structural Underground member laws & compliance Continuum design Support GeoMechanics Systems structures Contract Law elasticity e.g. foundations e.g. tunnel specification plasticity Risk Management idealisation Numerical Analysis observation method boundary element risk assessment finite difference Surface Geo-structures Ground instrumentation discrete element e.g. embankments, Improvement Mechanical finite element landfills e.g. densification, Engineering remediation drilling Geochemistry instrument waste Ground Construction Site Exploration Materials excavation leachates reconnaissance Movements practice types durability earthquake experience drilling properties liquefaction in-situ testing geosynthetics sinkhole laboratory testing geophysics

Geotechnical Engineering

Modified from Morgenstern (2000)
8

Burland’s Geotechnical Triangle
Morgenstern (2000)

Genesis/Geology

Ground Profile

Site investigation Ground description

Precedent, Empiricism, Experience, Risk-management Ground Behaviour Appropriate Model

Lab/field testing Observation/measurement

Idealisation followed by evaluation. Conceptual or physical modelling Analytical modelling

9

Source :http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/16/Tampabay/At_site_of_collapse__.shtml

10

11

12 Source :National Geographic (Jan 2008)

13 Source :National Geographic (Jan 2008)

How GI cost
Captain, no worry! We are still far from it. Consequence Perceive d Cost

Actual Cost

14

How GI shall be done ?

15

Codes & Standards

16

Process Diagram of Ground Investigation

17

Process Diagram of Ground Investigation

18

Stage 1 of GI
Desk Study Site Walk-over Survey Identify Project Need Scope of GI Bid Document & Tender “Without Site Investigation, Ground is a Hazard”
19

Stage 2 of GI
Field Supervision Sampling, In-situ Testing, Geophysical Survey Monitoring Laboratory Testing Work Certification “Without Site Investigation, Ground is a Hazard”
20

Stage 3 of GI
Factual Data Compilation

Interpretation

Report Preparation “Without Site Investigation, Ground is a Hazard”
21

Desk Study
Information for Desk Study :
• Topographic Maps
• Geological Maps & Memoirs • Site Histories & Land Use • Aerial Photographs • Details of Adjacent Structures &

Foundation
Granite

• Adjacent & Nearby Ground Investigation

Alluvium

Jurong Formation

Pipeline s Project Site

Proje ct Site

1986

1999

Pipelines

Project Site

Pipeline

s

Project Site

22

Site Walkover Survey
• Confirm the findings from Desk

Study
• Identify additional features &

information not captured by Desk Study

23

GI Planning

24

Depth of Investigation

Foundation Design

Stability Analysis

25

Common Problems
Incomplete Survey Information

26

GI Planning

27

GI Planning

28

Specification
Objectives (study, design, forensic, construction) Type of investigation, mapping & field survey Vertical & lateral extent (termination depth) Sampling requirements (types, sampling locations & techniques) In-situ and laboratory testing requirements (standards) Measurement/monitoring requirements (instrument types & frequency) Skill level requirements in specialist works & interpretation Report format & data presentation
29

Specification
Work schedule & GI resources planning Payments for services, liability, indemnity, insurance cover

30

Boring/Drilling
Recov er Sampl e In-situ Testin g - Subsurface stratification/profile - Material classification & variability - Laboratory tests

- Allow in-situ tests down hole (profiling) - Direct measurement of ground behaviours

Monitorin g

- Allow monitoring instruments installed down hole

31

Direct Method – Boring, Sampling, In-situ & Laboratory Testing
Medical Applications - Biopsy sampling Geotechnical Applications - Boring, Trial Pitting & Sampling
• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Thin-walled, Piston Sampler Mazier Sampler Block Sample SPT, MP, CPTu, VST, PMT, DMT, PLT, Permeability Test Field Density Test Classification Test Compressibility Test (Oedometer/Swell) Strength Test (UU/UCT/CIU/DS) Permeability Test Compaction Test Chemical Test (pH, Cl, SO4, Redox, Organic Content) Petrography & XRD

-In-situ Testing

-Laboratory Testing

32

Indirect Method – Geophysical Survey
Medical Applications - X-ray, Computer Tomography & MRI - Ultra-sound
-Geotechnical Applications

Geophysical Survey - Electromagnetic Waves
(Permeability, Conductivity & Permittivity)

- Mechanical Wave
(Attenuation, S-waves & P-waves)
• • • • •

33 Santamarina, J. C. (2008) - http://www.elitepco.com.tw/ISC3/images/Keynote-03-Santamarina.pdf

Resistivity Method Microgravity Method Transient Electro-Magnetic Method Ground Penetration Radar Seismic Method

Geophysical Survey
• Merits • Lateral variability (probing location) • Profiling (sampling & testing) • Sectioning (void detection) • Material classification • Engineering parameters (G0 &

Gdynamic) • Problems

•Over sale/expectation •Misunderstanding between

engineers, engineering geologists & geophysicists •Lack of communication •Wrong geophysical technique used •Interference/noice
34

Sampler
Split Spoon Thin-Walled Piston Sampler Mazier Sampler Core Barrel Wire-line

35

Sampler
Split Spoon Thin-Walled Piston Sampler Mazier Sampler Core Barrel Wire-line

36

Sampler
Split Spoon Thin-Walled Piston Sampler Mazier Sampler Core Barrel Wire-line

37

Sampler
Split Spoon Thin-Walled Piston Sampler Mazier Sampler Core Barrel Wire-line

38

Sampler
Split Spoon Thin-Walled Piston Sampler Mazier Sampler Core Barrel Wire-line

39

Sampler
Split Spoon Thin-Walled Piston Sampler Mazier Sampler Core Barrel Wire-line

40

Sample Storage, Handling, Transportation

41

Sample Preparation

42

Sampling
• Sample Sizes

• Representative mass

(particle sizes, fabric, fissures, joints) • Adequate quantity for testing
• Sample Disturbance

Before
Stress relief Swelling Compaction Displacement Base heave Piping Caving

During
Stress relief Remoulding Displacement Shattering Stone at cutting shoe Mixing or segregation Poor recovery

After
Stress relief Moisture migration Extrusion Moisture loss Heating Vibration Contamination

• Stress conditions • Deformation behaviours • Moisture content & void • Chemical characteristics

Clayton et al (1982)
43

Sample Disturbance
Poor recovery
Longer rest period for sample swelling Slight over-sampling Use of sample retainer

Sample contamination

44

Sample Quality Classification
Sample Quality Soil Properties
Classificatio n Moisture Content Density Strength Deformation Consolidatio n

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

Class 5
45

In-situ Tests

Piezocone (CPTu)

46

In-Situ Tests
• BS1377 : Part 9 • Suitable for materials with difficulty in sampling
• Very soft & sensitive clay • Sandy & Gravelly soils • Weak & Fissured soils • Fractured rocks

• Interpretation
• Empirical • Semi-empirical • Analytical
47

Applicability of In-situ Tests
Test SPT CPT/CPTu DMT PMT PLT VST Seismic SBPMT Falling/ Rising Head Test Constant Head Test Packer Test Clayton , et al (1995) G = granular, C = cohesive, R G, C G C G, C G, C C C C G, C, R G C R
48

K0

φ’ G G

Cu C C

σc R

E’/G G G G G, R G, R

Eu C

Gmax G

k

C C

In-situ Tests

49

In-situ Tests
Pressuremeter (PMT)

50

In-situ Tests
Dilatometer (DMT)

51

Instrumentation Monitoring
• Inclinometer • Extensometer • Rod Settlement Gauge/Marker • Piezometer • Observation Well
Toward River

52

Laboratory Tests

53

Source : Life Style Magazine - EDGE

54

Ground Characterisation
Focus of Geological Model

Stratificatio n

Historical Geological Processes

Weathering

Hydrogeology

Geological Structures

Geomorpholog y
55

Geological Mapping
Mapping of :
- Geological features (Structural - Geomorphology - Lithology

settings)
- Weathering profile - Outcrop exposure - Seepage conditions

- Stratification

56

Ground Characterisation
Focus of Geotechnical Model

Subsurfa ce Profile

Strength

Stiffness

Permeability

Material Type

Chemical Characteristi cs
57

58

59

General Dilemma of GI Industry
• Lack of pride & appreciation from consultant/client in GI industry. • Actions done is considered work done! Poor professionalism.

Financial survival problem due to competitive rates in uncontrolled environment (Cutting corner) No appropriate time frame for proper work procedures (shoddy works) Shifting of skilled expert to Oil & Gas or other attractive industries
60

Poor Planning & Interpretation
Inadequate investigation coverage vertically & horizontally Wrong investigating tools No/wrong interpretation Poor investigating sequence

61

Poor Site Implementation
Lack of level & coordinates of probing location Sample storage, handling, transportation Inappropriate equilibrium state in Observation Well & Piezometer
62

Poor In-situ & Laboratory Results
Lack of calibration Wear & Tear Errors Equipment systematic error (rod friction, electronic signal drift, unsaturated porous tip) Defective sensor Inappropriate testing procedures Equipment calibration (Variation of pH Values) Improper sample preparation Inadequate saturation Inappropriate testing rate Inadequate QA/QC in testing processes Inherent sample disturbance before testing
63

Poorly Maintained Tools

64

Over-confidence in Geophysics
- We detect everything, but indentify almost nothing

(Rich but Complex). - Geophysical data is rich in content, but very complex in nature. - Not a unique solution in tomographic reconstruction (Indirect method) - Poor remuneration to land geophysicist as compared to O&G - Poor investigation specification - Lack of good interpretative skill (human capital) - High capital costs in equipment & software investment
65

Communication Problem
We are connecting the bridge deck at the same level successfully!

66

Difficulties in Identification of Complex Geological Settings

67

Difficulties in Identification of Complex Geological Settings

68

Weathering Profile
Deviation of material classification between borehole and excavation (Claim issue – Soil or Rock ?)

69

Complexity of Rock Mass Complicated rock Properties mass strength in slope & excavation
design Requiring judgement (involving subjectivity) Information normally only available during construction a ⎡ ⎛σ 3' ⎞ ⎤ ⎟ + s⎥ σ 1 ' = σ 3 ' + σ u ⎢mb ⎜ ⎢ ⎜σ u ⎟ ⎥ ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝

70

Unexpected Blowout of Underground Gas
Gas pockets at 32m bgl Flushing out of sand

71

Supervision
Assurance of work compliance Critical information is captured without missing Timely on-course instruction for sampling, insitu testing & termination as most GI specifications are general in nature, but ground is unpredictable. Checking between field records and reported information Work certification
72

Future Trend - Electronic Data Collection, Transfer & Management
• AGS data transfer format & AGS-

M format (monitoring data)

• First Edition in 1992,

AGS(1992) • Second Edition in 1994, AGS(1994) • Third Edition in 1999
• Advantages :

• Efficient & Simplicity • Minimised human error • GI & Monitoring Data

Management System • Record keeping • Spatial data analysis
http://www.ags.org.uk/site/datatransfer/intro.cfm
73

Conclusions
Nature of GI works & Geotechnical design (Uncertainties) Role of Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist & Geophysicist Stages of GI works (Planning, Implementation, Interpretation & Report) Specifications Methodology of GI (Merits & Demerits)
Fieldworks (Direct/Indirect) + Geological Mapping Laboratory tests

Common Problems & Future Trend
74

References
Anon (1999). “Definition of Geotechnical Engineering”. Ground Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 39. BSI (1981). “Code of Practice for Site Investigation, BS 5930”. British Standards Institution, London. BSI (1981). “Code of Practice for Earthworks, BS 6031”. British Standards Institution, London. BSI (1986). “Code Practice for Foundation, BS8004”. British Standards Institution, London. BSI (1990). “British Standard Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, BS 1377”. British Standards Institution, London. Clayton, C. R. I., Matthews, M. C. & Simons, N. E. (1995). “Site Investigation”, Blackwell Science, 2nd edition. Gue, S. S. & Tan, Y. C. (2005), “Planning of Subsurface Investigation and Interpretation of Test Results for Geotechnical Design”, Sabah Branch, IEM. Liew, S. S. (2005). “Common Problems of Site Investigation Works in a Linear Infrastructure Project”, IEM-MSIA Seminar on Site Investigation Practice, 9 August 2005, Armada Hotel, Kuala Lumpur. European Group Subcommittee (1968). “Recommended method of Static and Dynamic Penetration Tests 1965”. Geotechnique, Vol. 1, No. 1.
75

References
FHWA (2002), “Subsurface Investigations — Geotechnical Site Characterization”. NHI Course No. 132031. Publication No. FHWA NHI-01-031 GCO (1984). “Geotechnical Manual for Slopes”. Geotechnical Control Office, Hong Kong GCO (1980). “Geoguide 2 : Guide to Site Investigation, Geotechnical Control Office, Hong Kong Gue, S. S. (1985). “Geotechnical Assessment for Hillside Development”. Proceedings of the Symposium on Hillside Development; Engineering Practice and Local By-Laws, The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia. Head, K. H. (1984). “Manual of Soil Laboratory testing”. Morgenstern, N. R. (2000). “Common Ground”. GeoEng2000, Vol. 1, pp. 1-20. Neoh, C. A. (1995). “Guidelines for Planning Scope of Site Investigation for Road Projects”. Public Works Department, Malaysia Ooi, T.A. & Ting, W.H. (1975). “The Use of a Light Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Malaysia”. Proceeding of 4th Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 3-62, 3-79 Ting, W.H. (1972). “Subsurface Exploration and Foundation Problems in the Kuala Lumpur Area”. Journal of Institution of Engineers, Malaysia, Vol. 13, pp. 19-25 Santamarina, J. C. (2008). “The Geophysical Properties of Soils”, 3rd Int. Conf. on Site Characterisation, Keynote Lecture No. 3, Taiwan. Site Investigation Steering Group, “Without Site Investigation, Ground is a Hazard”, Part 1, Site Investigation in Construction Thomas Telford Ltd
76

77